TNAG-2961-FCO40-4240-Future-of-Hong-Kong-British-Consulate-General-building-incl-1993 — Page 6

BETV

MAY

1991

2.2 HONG KONG:

Mr Bertram reported that the Chinese Land Commission had still not approved the Colvin House site. But it was expected that they would do so in the end. In the meantime it was necessary to redefine the brief to be ready to move quickly to project managers when the go- ahead was given. Mr Johnston would be doing this and he would need to have the appropriate input from the Council stating the requirements such as a separate access. Ministers were anxious to leave a symbol in place and Colvin House would be pursued as the site. Funding had been set aside which included provision for the co-location of the Council but the bid had not been broken down into detail. Mr Pugh said that the Council had worries about co- location with the Hong Kong Consulate-General. The PES bid to include the Council had been interpreted by them to imply no rent would be charged. If however rent was to be payable then the Council would expect to look at what other opportunities there might be to rent. Mr Bertram said that he did not recall that there would be no rental to be paid by the Council.Mr Pugh said that on a Council internal file there was a record by Mr Roberts after contact with Mr Savage in OED that there was £6 million in the PES bid for the British Council element. Roberts had deduced therefore that no rent would be paid. This was the line being taken by the Council internally so any change would mean the matter going to their top management and the Business Case was already against Colvin House. Mr Bertram said that the Roberts deduction was false. The location had improved. The British Council had already agreed. Co-location and the views of Ministers may need to take precedence over British Council worries. It would be embarassing if the Council were to back out now from Colvin House especially since the Hong Kong Legco case to the Chinese Land Commission included a British Council presence. Mr MacEnally referred to his minute of 16 April to Mr Savage. There was also the question of the status of the British Council post 1996. It was agreed that OED would review their papers as would the Council. Mr Johnston would be in touch with Mr Pugh in due course but the preparation of the revised brief would go ahead on the original assumption of British Council involvement.

·

Action OED/BC.

2.3 RANGOON:

There would be no expansion of British Council premises.

бес вс lette 71619.

2.4 SHANGHAI: There was the possibility of a flat being available for Council use.A new Director was being appointed so the Council were interested but they needed more details from OED. Mr Bertram said they would be provided.

Action OED.

2.5 PEKING:

British Council were very pleased with the outcome. Mr Thomas requested that the record reflect a tribute to Mr Owen and Mr Savage for all their help.

канки 3631

(i

6